proRo class 19

bus company that hit the woman is owned by a parent company that is your client. turns out no one has done any work for the subsidiary. the parent co is responsible for insurance coverage and indirectly responsible for any insurance liabilities and premiums the sub needs to pay and the general counsel of parent co is the dad of the top dog at the bus company and in fact the bus co has numerous instances where there's been mismanagement. parent counsel has insisted that the bus company increase its insurance as a result.

what
assume the bus company is not a client. what potential conflicts still exist?

litigation strategy - if GC finds out that its own representative firm finds out that the firm wants to sue a parent or sub company, will probably find it to be an act of extreme disloyalty. do you think it will be best to withdraw? you can under rule 1.16. but you will still owe a duty to the woman under 1.9. the woman can then say, whoa! you can't represent the bus company - you're my former attorney!!

N.B. more judicial ethics is on the MPRE than in this class

ABA's code of conduct is the most influential doc on judicial ethics. it's a kind of template for codes throughout the country and for federal court. just like the model rules for lawyers, the model code is just a model and individual jurisdictions do their own rules and have their own disciplinary committees.

two issues - CONFLICT and BIAS

rule 2.11: if his/her impartiality may be questioned, then .... requires a neutral observer.

see the Bush v. Gore conflict question: the "money coming into the pocket book" rule is pretty standard. usually expect that there should be a monetary gain. but there's also an argument that pure financial gain shouldn't be the deciding factor, because there are non-monetary incentives for people's behavior as well.

the more mrs. thomas focuses and disseminates information that has a particular adversarial bent, is she not infringing on the impartiality of the judiciary? is this an infringement to freedom of speech? how far will we allow this to go (DG says, a one step removal)? 

DG thinks it's an important point to note that spouses in the modern age don't have to have the same political bent as their husbands.

judge was a trustee of loyola but wasn't aware that there were extracontractual relationship with regards to a piece of real estate. the judge rendered decision in favor of the real estate contractor in a different case, and the results of the case "grease the skids" with respect to loyola. the judge doesn't know any of this at the time of ruling and rules for the real estate contractor. before the ruling was issued, brought this up.

this is the RECUSAL STATUTE. this case is in the scope of s.455(a) "judge must excuse himself where his impartiality may reasonably be questioned"

is this too rough of a standard? is there a sense of lying and/or impropriety?

the issue isn't of the outcome of this case. the problem is with legitimacy and preventing future injustice.

judicial ethics rule 2.11 requires recusal where the judge "while a judge/candidate has made a public statement other than a court proceeding or opinion that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result in the proceeding controversy"

for example, let's say the judge makes a statement "if elected i will impose the death penalty on anyone convicted of 1st deg murder"

for example, "if elected i will impose the death penalty on anyone convicted of 1st deg murder if he deserves it "

for example, "i support marriage equality"

scalia: "there's a problem with the homosexual agenda"
sotomayor: "any wise latina having had her culture's men shipped to prison in droves, would limit expansive reading of 2nd amendment"

should it make a difference if the comments are said publicly or in a private context?

do we want judges to do this? as litigants, we like this because we can direct our motions towards the ideas that we want to sway reachable justices.

READ THE JUDICIAL CANON Rule 2.11, 3.3 - 3.6

Rule 3.6 - no invidious discrimination

for example, if a judge is a member of a club that only admits men, must he resign that club?
if a judge is a member of an italian-american lawyers guild, must he resign?
if a judge is a member of a club for ex-marines, does he have to withdraw because the military has a DODT policy?
or, does the judge not have to withdraw before the dist ct gave its opinion, but now that the decision has been handed down, does s/he have to withdraw?
does a judge have to withdraw from the roman catholic church because it discriminates against the hiring of women as priest?
does a judge have to withdraw from an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion?

** must be invidious discrimination, not any kind of celebration **